Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice M. Jothiraman dismissed writ petitions seeking to quash the order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and the consequential government order. The court held that the findings of the Commission, rendered under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, were enforceable in law and that the State Government was under legal obligation to comply. The court declined to interfere with the compensation awarded to the complainant for violation of human rights by police officials and upheld the Government's order to recover the compensation amount from the concerned officers.

The writ petitions involved a challenge to the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission order dated 13.11.2018 in SHRC.No.9744 of 2013 and the subsequent Government Order in G.O.(D). No.987 dated 14.07.2022. The complaint before the Commission was lodged by one Mr. Rajinikanth, who alleged custodial harassment by several police officials following his arrest in Crime No.2046 of 2013 registered under Section 420 IPC by M3 Puzhal Police Station.

Also Read: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof In Criminal Trial | Supreme Court Acquits Man Of Murder As Prosecution Fails To Prove Who Pulled The Trigger

Rajinikanth claimed that in the early hours of 20.12.2013, he was taken to the police station, coerced to remove all his clothes, and kept in lock-up under inhuman conditions. He further alleged that valuables were taken from him under duress and that he was tortured physically and mentally, including during a transfer near Kathirvedu bridge, where he sustained injuries. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate at Velacherry on 22.12.2013 at 6.49 PM, where he reportedly narrated the torture, he underwent. His legal counsel attempted to move an application under Section 54 CrPC for medical examination, but it was refused.

The complaint named Inspector Babu Rajendra Bose, Sub Inspectors Mullaivendan and Mani, and constables Gopi and Karunakaran as responsible for the alleged acts. The Commission registered the matter in SHRC.No.9744 of 2013 and proceeded with inquiry. Rajinikanth was examined as PW1 and submitted 25 documents marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P25. The accused officials, including petitioners Babu Rajendra Bose and Mani, were examined as RW1 and RW3, respectively, and submitted three documents marked Ex. R1 to Ex. R3.

The Commission concluded that the complainant had suffered indignity and humiliation at the hands of Inspector Babu Rajendra Bose and Sub Inspector Mani, amounting to violation of human rights. The Commission recommended compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and directed that the same be recovered equally from the two officers. The State Government accepted the recommendations and issued G.O.(D). No.987 dated 14.07.2022 for payment and recovery.

Petitioners challenged both the Commission’s findings and the government order. They argued that the SHRC erred in concluding a human rights violation without adequate evidence, that the incident stemmed from a civil dispute incorrectly criminalised, and that the compensation was arbitrarily fixed without legal basis.

The State Government contended that recommendations under Section 18 of the Act are binding and enforceable and cited the Full Bench decision in Abdul Sattar v. Principal Secretary, 2021 (3) CTC 129, to support the enforceability of such orders. The respondents also submitted that the Government could recover amounts paid as compensation from the erring officials responsible for rights violations.

The court took note that although the SHRC order was passed in 2018, it was not challenged until 2023 and 2024, after the issuance of the government order. The court also recorded the factual findings of the Commission, including medical records, complaints filed by the complainant with various authorities, and judicial proceedings that corroborated the custodial allegations.

The court noted, "It is seen from the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, complainant/4th respondent/Mr.Rajinikanth was tortured and arrested by the police. Though there is no serious injury to Mr.Rajinikanth, the torture made out him is a mental torture and the same also amounts to violation of Human Rights."

The Division Bench recorded, "It is pertinent to mention that though the writ petitioners have suffered from the order of State Human Rights Commission on 13.11.2018 itself, however they have not chosen to challenge the same till the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed an order, by accepting the recommendations..."

Citing statutory backing, the court observed, "The State Human Rights Commission which has been assigned a constitutional role with statutory backing, its recommendations are not liable to be ignored. It is needless to mention that any act done by the officials of the Government in violation of the Human Rights then the Government either directly or vicariously liable."

Referring to the Full Bench decision, the court stated, "The recommendation of the Commission made under Section 18 of the Act, is binding on the Government or Authority. The Government is under a legal obligation to forward its comments on the Report including the action taken or proposed to be taken to the Commission in terms of sub-clause (e) of Section 18."

"Therefore, the recommendation of the H.R. Commission under Section 18 is an adjudicatory order which is legally and immediately enforceable. If the concerned Government or authority fails to implement the recommendation of the Commission within the time stipulated... the Commission can approach the Constitutional Court under Section 18(b) of the Act for enforcement."

The court further stated, "The police officials must adhere to human rights standing orders to build trust, prevent abuse and promote accountability. By upholding human rights, police officials shall effectively perform their duties, while respecting citizen's fundamental rights and dignity."

Also Read: Writ of Prohibition Issued | Andhra Pradesh HC Bars Wakf Tribunal from Rehearing 47-Year-Old Land Dispute |‘Jurisdiction Non-Existent, Title Settled Since 1978’

The court held that there was no merit in the writ petitions and stated, "In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the first respondent in SHRC.No.9744 of 2013 and the GO. (D). No.987 dated 14.07.2022 passed by the second respondent."

The Division Bench concluded, "In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Rajasekar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate for R1; Mr. M. Venkateshwaran, Special Government Pleader for R2; Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor for R3

Case Title: D. Babu Rajendra Bose & Another v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission & Others

Case Number: W.P.Nos.4569 of 2023 & 17866 of 2024

Bench: Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice M. Jothiraman